This document as I pointed out not long ago need to become a mandatory document to all members and CPA Australia has to publish it every 6 months as ASX firms do and the next step is to get CPA Australia to publish income and expenditures (half year financial statements) every 6 months to members.

Did anyone note that 200 ASA are voting members????

As per the board as at 31 December 2016 we had 160,888 members (including ASA, CPA & FCPA) and as at 30 June 2017 we have 158,311 members (including ASA, CPA & FCPA) well that is a decrease of 2,577 and yet the board paid Alex $5m payout. So we went backward. The next question as we all pointed out how many members come through MRA??

Now the board pointed out that it was their strategy that Alex was rolling out and it was to target the young people market by spending millions in advertising, the naked CEO and etc..

Now let's look at the demographic as at 31 December 2016 we only have 15% in the aged bracket of 20 - 29 where 17,414 are ASA and 6,089 CPA. Which is very low for all the money CPA spending, it is not attracting new members in those age bracket.

Also based on the information from the board we have 73.42% (118,131 members (ASA,CPA & FCPA) in the Oceania region and only 26.57% outside Ocenia region. Let do a cost benefits analysis, after all the expenditures, having local office and advertising, is it really worth it. This does point out that many existing members are not satisfied or don't perceive any value in having a CPA designation as the board are out of touch with full status members.

Does all the excessive salaries and advertising reflect the membership number??
Was the Naked CEO, In Conversation with Alex, Sponsorship of Australian Open, NBL and NRL worth all the spending in comparison with the membership number.

I agree a very good analysis of what seem to be a failed international growth strategy. No wonder Mr Malley didn't want to disclose membership figures. That bill board in Time Square obviously was really worth it...... NOT!

As commented either in the Fin Review or here the tennis sponsorship was an attempt to appeal to the Chinese market. Seems like a monumental waste of time.

I wish the organisation had just concentrated on the really important things, like providing services to members and maintaining the limited liability scheme for public practitioners. The CPA Advice venture might have been an attempt to provide some value to members or more likely just empire building by the CEO. Whatever it was the execution of that strategy was and is horrendous. The lack of adequate disclosure seems to be a pattern to cover up failed strategies.

It's been my experience that the best growth strategy for an organisation is an organic one. Be good at what you do. If CPA Australia was providing an attractive membership offering to accountants there would be no reason to go chasing growth and trying to con young people with the Naked CEO cult of personality.

That membership growth trajectory would have occurred regardless of whether 'the almighty Malley' was at the helm and the millions spent on marketing and sponsorship... a colossal waste of money that could have been pumped back into professional development services for members, which in turn would bolster the credentials of the designation and ensure organic growth through just being a proper professional association.

All these stats do is raise more questions about the running of OUR professional association for the past 8 years. For example, what were the growth targets set each year that validated the rising annual subs and the expense of a global marketing strategy? Were these targets met? Did remuneration and/or job promotions match performance ? Or is this just a whole "game of mates"?

Why do I think this?

Australia residential population has grown by just under 9% p.a. over the period in these graphs (source: ABS ERP)

Total CPA membership has grown by 3.1% p.a. over the same period, according to this data (I used 160k as the final total, despite the graph saying about 162k and the numbers saying 158k....). So we aren't keeping pace with the local population, despite a programme of pushing into Asian markets that you would think provides an additional source of growth.

Basically all the growth is in CPA status, as ASA is flat and FCPA is declining.

Now , since 25% of our members are from the wider geographic definition of Asia, and that CPA was prioritising growth in Asia (at least, that's what they told me), you would expect to see significant increases in ASA , and then CPA status as the ASA's qualify, while investing in those markets. This data from CPA doesn't reveal if that has been succesful, but I do find it hard to believe that 10 years ago , Asia represented 25% of our total membership as it does today. So should I conclude from flat ASA numbers that Asian growth has occurred but local growth has, despite massive TV, billboard, and sports marketing, been a failure in our own backyard? Or has there been no growth at all in ASA numbers, in any geography, despite the Asia push ?

Next question: how does CPA membership grow at 5.4% p.a. (According to the graphs) when ASA numbers are flat? Has CPA Australia been signing up lots of members direct into CPA status by granting credits for previous studies elsewhere, or, do we have a tsunami of honorary members ? I do recall divisions being placed under pressure to nominate honorary members in past years...I assume they don't pay subs? Or did we lower our pass marks at some point to drive higher conversion of ASA into CPA? I can't quite think why else flat ASA numbers are yielding materially growing CPA status numbers.

Then the big question becomes....if we have significant annual growth of CPA status from a flat base of ASAs....have CPA Australia been gaming their own business to achieve their "targets", justify their bloated salaries, and pay their bonuses? Yet overall growth seems modest? Hello, Enron.

But hey, please anyone feel free to tell me I am wrong, I only did some high level checking of these numbers.

Let face the reality, it was all bull crap, the board and Alex rubbish us members while taking majority of the surplus out of the association. That is why CPA Australia should no more have surplus as a priority rather serving full status members and the accounting profession.

CPA Australia to maintain its prestigious will need a more robust candidate screening as my next question to the board what is the conversion rate from ASA to CPA and let's face it 75% of CPA and FCPA are based in Australia why on earth is CPA looking to penetrate Asia or USA or any other market. It is a waste of time, resources at the cost of existing members especially us in Australia and New Zealand. What CPA should have done which they fail absolutely is to negotiate MRA and alliance with reputable accounting associations in those location like ACCA, CIMA etc these accounting bodies are already on the field and know their local markets more than CPA Australia and cut all the fact of having local offices and huge marketing spending and the main thing the need to recruit members at the cost of quality and members service. By building alliances and MRA it makes CPA become a globally recognised accounting body. Many already confused CPA Australia with CPA US. They have failed to grow relationship with other reputable accounting body. CA ANZ now has alliance with ACCA and its a smart move rather than investing in UK which already have various accounting bodies so you will need to compete with them for what. At the end of the day all accounting bodies are advocating for accountants, members and the profession.

Last edited by Time4Change on Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.